Cal.3: The evidence supports the conclusion that def consented to his blood draw

Substantial evidence supported the finding that defendant consented to his blood draw. After the officer instructed her that the implied consent law required her to undergo a blood draw, defendant did not object or refuse to undergo the test, did not resist any of the officers’ directions, and voluntarily placed her arm on the table to allow the phlebotomist to draw her blood. The result was not changed by the officer’s failure to relate the admonitions regarding the consequences of refusal. People v. Lopez, 2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 198 (3d Dist. Mar. 11, 2020).*

There were factual disputes that the defendant police officers shot a man not resisting precluding qualified immunity. Amador v. Vasquez, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7675 (5th Cir. Mar. 11, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.